---

Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 32:"Page 26, line 12, leave out ““qualifications and””" The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Grand Committee, the Minister explained that it is the Government’s intention to consult all interested parties on the content of the regulations that will set out the requirements that a pharmacist must meet in order to take on the responsibilities associated with being in charge of a pharmacy. That was a welcome assurance. The point I raised then, and which I raise again today through the amendment, relates to the mention in proposed new Section 72A(7)(a) of the qualifications that a pharmacist must have if he is to be a responsible pharmacist. We all understand that pharmacists must be properly qualified. If you wish to practise as a pharmacist in this country, you must be a member of the statutory regulatory body for the profession, which is the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. You are thereby registered with the society and are entitled to use the registered title of pharmacist. Those requirements and entitlements are recognised throughout the European Union, and each member state has its own equivalent and comparable arrangements. However, in proposed new Section 72A there is a power for Ministers to lay down additional requirements for anyone seeking to become the responsible pharmacist. The Minister explained that in subsection (7)(a) the Government wished to ensure, quite rightly, that the training and experience of such a pharmacist are fit for purpose. The question mark that I raise over the inclusion of the word ““qualifications”” is that it appears to confer a power on Ministers to stipulate a professional qualification over and above that of being a member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. If the Government were to make such a stipulation, the implications would be far-reaching. Is there any intention at present to propose that? If so, the profession certainly needs to know about it. If there is not, I wonder whether there is a need to include the word ““qualifications””, because clearly no person may be appointed to be a responsible pharmacist unless he or she is already a qualified pharmacist with all that carries with it. The profession has voiced its concern to me that the qualification necessary to run a retail pharmacy business in this country should be no more nor less than it is elsewhere in Europe. I have sympathy with that view. It would be helpful to hear a little more from the Minister, not about the issue of experience, which is less contentious in this context, but about the specific issue of professional qualifications. I beg to move.